Talk:History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi

The Article is Skewed and anti-Gaddafi

Before I begin, let me tell you that I'm not pro-Gaddafi. It's just that I want to make this article neutral.

Though this article is claims to be about the History of Libya under Muammar al-Gaddafi, I don't find much information on Libya here.

Why doesn't this article talk about:

• Education under Gaddafi
• Healthcare under Gaddafi
• Housing under Gaddafi
• Infrastructure under Gaddafi
• Humans Rights under Gaddafi

and a lot of other things?

You can't have an article about the United States which doesn't talk about these education or its media. Why should Libya be an exception?

Moreover, not even a single line is cited in the introduction section. What's more I don't even find any citation needed tag there. This is not what Wikipedia is about, isn't it?

Sin un nomine (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Humans Rights under Gaddafi" should be an interesting one. You are welcome to research and write it.

You are also welcome to research "Housing under Gaddafi" or anything else that strikes your fancy, just be aware that incorporation of material in the main article will be subject to WP:DUE considerations.

As for the "lack" of references in the lead section, please read the guidelines at WP:LEAD. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I did some search and found some interesting materials on Libya. I have incorporated them into the introduction section. They are backed by references so I believe they will not be deleted without specifying a reason.

As far as WP:DUE considerations are concerned, just because a powerful nation doesn't like Libya and its leader doesn't mean one should not write about anything but wars and terrorism.

WP:LEAD doesn't say a word about not using references in the lead section.

Sin un nomine (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

bias

diff:[1]

Here is a passage I removed as almost comical

"Gaddafi formed the essential elements of his political philosophy and his world view as a schoolboy. His education was entirely Arabic and strongly Islamic, much of it under Egyptian teachers. From this education and his desert background, Qadhafi derived his devoutness and his austere, even puritanical, code of personal conduct and morals. Essentially an Arab populist, Qadhafi held family ties to be important and upheld the beduin code of egalitarian simplicity and personal honor, distrusting sophisticated, axiomatically corrupt, urban politicians. Qadhafi's ideology, fed by Radio Cairo during his formative years, was an ideology of renascent Arab nationalism on the Egyptian model, with Nasser as hero and the Egyptian revolution as a guide."

I mean, personal honor, devoutness and austere, puritanical, code of personal conduct and morals? Whoever wrote this must either have been a very sarcastic soul, or perhaps used an antonym finder instead of a dictionary? Or machine translated Gaddafi's autobiography?

There is lots of similar funny material in the article still to be cleaned up. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Qadhafi vs. Gaddafi

The article uses both these names, are they the same person or am I missing some sentence where it explains the switch between the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.76.110 (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Title

This should have been known as "History of Libya under Gaddafi" as it is shorter to type in a search. -- 92.4.64.200 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is already a redirect from History of Libya under Gaddafi so no worries. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The recent undiscussed move by User:SuperblySpiffingPerson to History of Jamahiriya Libya was misguided in so many ways, I'll just say that please try to limit your edits to topics about which you have some sort of idea, or at least kindly read the article as it stands if you must edit it but do not yet know anything about it. --dab (𒁳) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup on Main Libya article

Hi all. Hoping that someone familiar with the material in this article might have a go at fixing up the corresponding section in the main Libya article. Thanks all!--Gnowor^T_C 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation

For Reference #47: The Middle East and North Africa 2003 (2002). Eur. p. 758,

Does anyone know where i can access this online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Article split

I propose that some portions of this article be split into separate articles titled; the Libyan Arab Republic, and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think i support this split. I did a search for articles with "history" "of" and "under", and these are the articles that have those words in the title:

• History of Egypt under the British
• History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty
• History of the Jews under Muslim rule
• History of Lebanon under Arab rule
• History of Mumbai under indigenous empires
• History of Bombay under British rule, History of Lebanon under Ottoman rule
• History of Lebanon under Assyrian rule
• History of Lebanon under Babylonian rule
• History of Lebanon under Roman rule (section History)
• History of Bombay under Portuguese rule (1534–1661)
• History of Lebanon under Hellenistic rule
• History of Mumbai under Islamic rule (section History)
• History of Hong Kong under Imperial China
• History of Lebanon under Persian rule
• History of Lebanon under Byzantine rule
• History of the Puritans under Elizabeth I
• History of the Puritans under Charles I
• History of the Puritans under James I
• History of the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Ottoman Empire

Redirects with these words:

• Greco-Roman world (redirect from History of Egypt Under Sasanian Persian Domination)
• Arab slave trade (redirect from History of slavery under Muslim rule)
• Magna Graecia (redirect from History of Italy under Greek rule)
• Greco-Roman world (redirect from History of Egypt Under Sasanian Persian Domination)

Note that most of the articles are about nations ruled over by other nations, or groups of people ruled over by particular nations or leaders. There are lots of notable eras of many nations histories during which a particular person ruled, such as USSR under Stalin, China under Mao (a redirect), Philippines under Marcos (a redirect, seems a fair number of these article names turn into redirects), US under FDR or Reagan, and we usually dont have articles with that naming structure. We do, on the other hand, usually have articles for each separately named nation state. I dont know enough about the 2 different states that kadafi ruled over yet to say if there are more than cosmetic differences between them, but i do think that breaking out his states as separate articles makes sense. This article name seems to slant towards POV. I do understand, however, that if most observers, and the libyan people, have always felt that this is an illegal imposition of one persons power over a people, the article could stand instead of the 2 separate articles. Id lean towards an article for each named state, and an overview article (this one), which links to the two larger articles on the states. (PS if you check the history, youll see that i did not turn the "great peoples bla bla bla" redirect back into an article, but i did write the article content that the reverting editor described as a "coatrack". mea culpa, but i was just trying to fill out a new article i had just discovered, which had nothing but an infobox, and was hoping that others might fill it out with the full history, and restructure this article accordingly. thus, my "coatrack" was in good faith, if a bit excitedly focused on the minutae of current events.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Perhaps there could also be a seperate article for the Libyan coup d'etat (1969). --143.238.91.206 (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 03:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale given, or with the idea that a split would be beneficient at this point. If you are going to implement a split, do it along WP:SS. But it is much more important to maintain coherence and encyclopedicity than to implement a single page per "name change" of the Libyan state under Gaddafi. Focus on improving the present article. If a structure suggest itself that lends itself to a topical split easily, so be it. But forcing the current article into an essentially arbitrary division isn't a very promising approach. Gaddafi was the ruler of Libya for 42 years, and his regime has dominated the country throughout this period. He was not the ruler of three separate successive states, even if the name changes would suggest so at first glance. I am not saying it is impossible to implement this split and still maintain encyclopedicity, I am just saying that it would be a lot of hard editorial work, and as long as you are not willing to do that work, it will be better to maintain the current structure. --dab (𒁳) 17:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think the article should be split in principle, but your point about the editorial work involved is completely valid. Unless someone can take the time to make it a really nice split, better to keep as is.Ive split 2 articles that were much less complex than this, and it was hard work for small payoff.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be just as valid to rename this article Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (the country's shorter name, see this page at the United nations website) and keep just one article for the Gaddafi period ? True, the country had a formal change of nature, as well as a new official name, in 1977 when it became the Jamahiriya, but the period is still marked by the presence of one single man in power. The change from the Republic to the Jamahiriya is arguably an important step, but this was essentially Gaddafi removing the last restraints to his personal power. We could just as well have one article, which would use the regime's last name as a title, and explain in detail the changes in the nature of government without splitting content. Hence, just renaming and reorganizing it could be enough. However, I think that such an article could be merged with Jamahiriya, since the chances of another regime to use such a name and such a form of government again are slim. The intro could go something like "The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (long form : Great People's socialist bla bla bla) was the second name used by the regime headed by Muammar Gaddafi as leader of Libya. Gaddafi came to power in 1969, the regime was calles Libyan arab republic until 1977 and then changed its name to Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, while proclaiming itself a direct democracy, etc etc". (written differently, of course, but that would be the gist of it). The article could then describe the whole Gaddafi period, with different sections and the articles Politics of Libya (for example) detailing in dedicated sections the formal changes between the 1969-1977 and the 1977-2011 periods. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What i like about this idea is simply we would use the name of an actual nation state as an article title. i guess im fond of that concrete naming convention. I would be fine with this, if others like it more than my idea, status quo, or others. (mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Gaddafist Libya?209.172.228.7 (talk)

That would be a neologism, as its not used (yet) by any sources. it would be a good idea if it was already in use.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.199 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafist Libya would be feasible, as we already have Francoist Spain (but that's because the country was known, under Franco, as the Spanish state, which is too generic). Then again, if "Gaddafist Libya" is not used by sources, there's no reason we should either. Personnally, I think using the last (and best-known) name of the regime would be the best solution. We have just one article for People's Republic of Kampuchea and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, even though both regimes changed official names and constitutions (although the 1977 change in Libya was arguably more spectacular than in Cambodia, Gaddafi was in power before and after, and just dissolved any formal limits to his own powers with the pretext of creating a direct democracy). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the second proposal of Jean-Jacques Georges, use the Jamahiriya name for Libya under Gaddafi. The Jamahiriya was the final name used by Libya under Gaddafi just as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was the final name used by Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito. Perhaps a short-form "Libyan Jamahiriya" could be used for the title as a convenient short-form of the long name.--R-41 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, looks like someone has unilaterally split the articles without removing the split proposal. While I understand the logic behind this, I still find it needlessly confusing. IMHO, we should remerge the articles into a single page, with the last official name as a title. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Libya under Gadaffi page akin to Spain under Franco?

Considering the similarities between the two, long dictatorships under the iron rule of one man, should there be a separate country page preceding the current Libya if Gadaffi is totally ousted and the rebels assume total contol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.118.244 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mandela on Qaddafi

"This man helped us at a time when we were all alone." 1 "Libya was one of those countries that supported us during our struggle when others were working with the apartheid regime." 2 "It was pure expediency to call on democratic South Africa to turn its back on Libya and Qaddafi, who had assisted us in obtaining democracy at a time when those who now made that call were the friends of the enemies of democracy in South Africa." 3

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

---

History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi → History of Libya under Gaddafi – It's a shorter title, it's consistent with other articles on this period in Libyan history, and "Gaddafi" is perfectly acceptable as a reference to Muammar Gaddafi; no one is going to think it might refer to another Gaddafi. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's certainly not consistent with Muammar Gaddafi to which Gaddafi currently redirects. Can you give specific examples? Otherwise this request should lapse for lack of a rationale. Andrewa (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Requests don't lapse for lack of rationale; that's never happened. The presumption has always been that requests are completed in the absence of opposition, rationale or not. In this case there is opposition, but lapsing for lack of rationale is a fiction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Disagree. But it explains this, anyway. A move should only take place if there's some reason for it. An unsupported request shouldn't be counted as a reason in itself, any more than "votes" which are unsupported by valid arguments should count against those that are well supported. If you can see valid reasons for a move that aren't given, then you should document them either in closing the move request or as a support vote, otherwise there's a risk that we'll just end up going over the same ground later on. If you can't see any such reasons, don't move it is my advice. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
      • If you think that a move should only take place if there's some reason for it, and that it's our job to enforce that, then you should suggest that the "move" button be disabled except for administrators, and that all moves be required to go through RM. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where I've brought this up.

        This prediction of "going over the same ground later on" has not been borne out, even though we've been closing uncontroversial and uncontested move requests without question for years. I've completed hundreds myself, and almost none has ever come back as a problem. We can trust editors more than you seem to think.

        This is nothing new. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for the "move" button to work for non-admins, and agree we can trust editors a great deal, that's fundamental to the project. And perhaps I put it a bit strongly above... a request for a move does itself count as a reason, but only as a minimal reason, and I've closed several in this category as move recently myself. The arguments either way aren't that strong above, and I wanted to encourage anyone who had a better case to put it. Whether we call a no move decision in this case allowing the request to lapse if no better case is forthcoming or whatever doesn't concern me greatly, but I don't think it's a fiction to describe it in these terms. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my years of closing requests, I've never failed to move an unopposed one for "lack of rationale", and this has never come back to bite me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not, and all of these may have improved the article space for all I know, but that also means that opportunities to improve the project space so that the guidelines reflect the actual practice have been missed. Andrewa (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an opportunity to me. Wanna be the one? Which guideline needs editing, exactly? When I started working in RM, I remember reading that the presumption was for moving unopposed requests, so it was accurate then, but I don't remember which page that was on. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It would be also inapropriate since Gaddafi is fairly used name in Libya as many member of Qaddadfha tribe share it. --EllsworthSK (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source of "Coup" Section

Not sure if this is how pages on Wikipedia normally work, but in my research I found that the section "Coup d'état of 1969" is, except for the first paragraph, basically a paste of the entire contents of this page. I'm not a frequent editor/contributor - is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.25.76 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge

See this section. Turns out the article has been split while the discussion wasn't resolved yet (granted, it hadn't been very active, so I don't really blame anyone for taking action and moving things forward). However, as I said before, I think we should have just one section for the whole Gaddafi period, since the changes in political structures had already begun before the formal change in 1977, and anyway it was still Gaddafi in power. My opinion is that we should use the regime's last name as a title (in the semi-short official form, Libyan arab Jamahiriya, which was used at the UN), as we do for Tito's Yugoslavia and the 1979-1989 Cambodian regime. See arguments above, again. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a point, and I agree with the merger, but I am not sure the renaming is such a good idea. Can we first clean up the article and see how it turns out? There is lots of content flying around that is now historical and needs to be updated. Basically all "$TOPIC in Libya" articles are now out of date and are at least partial merge candidates into this article. It is perfectly possible that after a round of mergers, we will decide to split this article again.

It makes sense to merge poor content so it can be cleaned up. Once we have fixed references and structure, it may make sense to create clean sub-articles about specific sub-topics. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi → Libyan Arab Jamahiriya – Articles merged (the separate articles and the sections in this one were absolutely identical), now I have requested the article's move to Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, so we can use the regime's official name (in short or, shall we say, semi-short official form). Having a common article for the Gaddafi regime is better IMHO and using an official name as the title makes more sense. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was the shorter form used under international law, by the UN, in treaties, etc, see here, here, and here. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Just as we have Kingdom of Libya section and not history of Libya under Idris Senussi this section should be named just as state entity was. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Libya under Idris had one official name. Libya under Gaddafi had three. No water held. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's time to create a separate "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" article. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Jeancey (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Tachfin (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Gaddafi kept renaming his state. What makes this a single topic is the fact that Gaddafi was the strongman. Whether he called his state a "republic", or "jamahiriya", or "great" is of secondary importance. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current title seems to fit WP:AT far better than proposed; Multiple issues. Just as an example, the common name for this country is simply Libya, and has been right through the period concerned. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Vehement oppose. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi had at least three different names: Libyan Arab Republic (1969-1972); Federation of Arab Republics (1972-1977); Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1977-2011). Having all that in a single article named for the last of these is misleading and ignores a significant chunk of Libyan history. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• What about Gaddafist Libya then? The current title is unwieldy.